Sales of Waterfront Property

Who Owns the Water?

All water in BC is owned by the Crown and strictly regulated. As property lines extend to, but do not include the foreshore, the upland owner has no rights to use or “possess” the water, only a right to access. A license from the Provincial Crown is require to use/ possess.

Waterfront Boundaries Can Change

The Crown owns all property which exists below the high water mark therefore if the high water mark changes, the property boundaries will change. A new survey is required to re-define the property after erosion (loss) or accretion (gain), especially for:

1. Property tax issues
2. Building on property (building envelope)
3. Building on water (dock location)

General Public has a Right of Access to Foreshore.

In Minor v. Van Ewyk, 2008 BCSC 558 the Court said that “the foreshore is open to public use…. The only rights the [land owner] may assert are her common law riparian right to unrestricted access to and from the water frontage, and the right conferred under a “License of Occupation””.

Dock Licenses

As Docks occupy Crown Land, a License is required for a legal dock. A License is a Personal Right and is not transferred with a transfer of the upland. There are Three Types of Dock Licneses commonly found on Okanagan Lake

A. License of Occupation (pre-2008)

B. Specific Permission (non-exclusive)

C. Water Lot Lease (exclusive occupation)

Importantly, unlike other some other lakes in BC, there is no General Permission on Okanagan Lake to build a dock!

The License will often have Limitations, for example:

A. Not to interfere with other rights or navigation (Fixed Impediments)

B. Environmental Covenants

C. Limitations on Use (# of slips/ commercial v. residential)

D. Cannot interfere with Public Access

E. No “non-moorage” purposes, incl.: patios, sundecks, hot tubs, roofs/ gazebos.

Assignment (Sales) of Dock Licenses

As a License is NOT conveyed with land, must be assigned

Suggested Contract Language:

The Seller assigns and the Buyer assumes all right, title and interest to the License of Occupation [or Permission] #19978722 with the Province of British Columbia, a true copy of which is attached to this Contract, for, inter alia, the Dock adjoining the property.

The Seller represents and warrants that the License of Occupation [or Permission] #19978722 is in good standing.”

Important Note: Consent of Province to the assignment often will be required and may be denied

Deposits on Residential Real Estate Contracts

A DEPOSIT is usually made from the BUYER in the BUYER’s AGENTS trust account and is held according to the stakeholder provisions of the Real Estate Services Act.

This means that the DEPOSIT can generally ONLY be released prior to completion where:
a) it is paid into COURT or in accordance with a COURT ORDER; or
b) by WRITTEN AGREEMENT of the parties.

Currently, there is a “gap” in RESA whereby a Buyer who does not remove his subject conditions could be faced by a stubborn Seller who refuses to release the deposit. This would force the Buyer (who doesn’t want the home anyway) to go to Court to get his deposit returned. In light of this I recommend that Buyer's do not make a deposit is made until subject removal.

The BC Court of Appeal expanded our understanding of “Deposits” in the recent case of Agosti v. Winter 2009 BCCA 490. The court distinguished between true deposits (amounts up to 10% of the purchase price) and excessive deposits. Absent other evidence, EXCESSIVE DEPOSITS (over 10%) may be characterized as punitive by the court and subject to “review and relief” under the Law and Equity Act.

With TRUE DEPOSITS, the court upheld the general rule that a true deposit is “earnest money” and is forfeit in the event of the Buyer’s failure to complete. This upholds the “ordinary meaning” of the word deposit and is reinforced by words such as “non-refundable” and “absolutely forfeited” upon breach by the Buyer. According to the Court, a Seller would be able to claim the TRUE DEPOSIT, even if such amount did not amount to a genuine pre-estimate of damages.

Importantly, this decision did not LIMIT the liability of the non-completing BUYER to the deposit amount alone. If forced to litigate, most Sellers are likely to seek amounts over and above the deposit, including (but not limited to) loss of profit, re-marketing costs, upkeep costs, and interest costs.

How can Realtors advise their clients?
a) no deposit should be made until subjects are removed;
b) a maximum deposit of 10% to ensure the deposit is a TRUE DEPOSIT;
c) once made to the brokerage, inform client that the deposit can ONLY be returned according to RESA; and
d) the minimum claim of a Seller in breach is likely the deposit amount, however the maximum claim may be substantially higher.

Addenda:
The Professional Standards Manual says that Listing Agents should, if no deposit is received, "advise sellers of the merits of a deposit being received from buyers". "Merits of a Deposit" is difficult language for Realtors and it will necessitate "what if" discussions in the event of non-completion. From a Realtor's perspective this is a good time to discuss what lawyer your client wishes to use.

2010 – The Year in Review

December is a wonderful month, the snow is falling and the ski hill is open. It provides a great time to look back and reflect on 2010 and look ahead to 2011. Some of the highlights for me this year have been:

1) Great Referrals from Great Realtors – in the past year I am proud to say that we have doubled our market share for real estate conveyancing. However, we did not do this alone. We only do this with the support of the first class professional realtors in OMREB who use and recommend our services everyday. Thank you all very much for you support in 2010.

2) HST – You’re probably thinking, seriously Peter? This is a highlight? From a lawyer’s point of view, Yes it is. The HST gave me a great opportunity to help out many realtors and clients through a difficult transition in the law. As lawyers, we don’t make the law but our job is to assist clients in working with it. So HST is something that 2010 will be remembered for. It will be interesting to see if the transition out of HST (and back to PST?) is something 2011 will be remembered for.

3) JUNE 30- We closed a record number of deals that day. The combination of pent up demand and the tax changes made for a very busy day. The economy looks to be aligning again for a similar June 2011 as buyers are putting off purchases as the prognosticators forecast the eventual demise of HST.

4) The Hard Deals – 2010 was the year of the hard deal. IRD penalties were rampant, Vendor’s were having trouble closing, and the economic uncertainty has lead to many properties being “underwater”. I am very proud to say that our firm did a great job of keeping these deals together. Having the litigation strength we do, we have been able to go to court and get the job done for a number of clients who have been on the innocent end of a deal gone wrong.

2011 is shaping up to be a very exciting time for us at Pihl Law Corporation. Some of the things “coming down the pipe” for us include:

1) Expanding our office space – we have taken over the first floor of our building and we are completing a state of the art “client centre”. I really look forward to inviting all of you to our “office warming” reception early in the New Year.

2) Expanding our staff – we are pleased to welcome Jody Serviss to our staff. She brings with her 6 years of conveyancing experience at a top tier law firm. New time you are in the office, please feel free to say hi to Jody.

3) Expanding our support of Realtors – we are constantly looking for a new and novel ways to assist Realtors to be “dealmakers”. Coinciding with the launch of our new office space, we are planning to launch a new toolbox to further assist local Realtors with their legal matters.

So, thank you all for a GREAT 2010, and I am looking forward to what is shaping up to be a Busier and Brighter 2011.

Power of Attorney

In Kelowna, it is common place that real estate closings occur with another party signing on behalf of the Seller and executing documents by a power of attorney. A power of attorney is a document whereby one person (the DONOR) confers authority on another person (the ATTORNEY) to take certain actions on their behalf.

A power of attorney can be LIMITED in scope. For example it can only allow a person to deal with banking affairs and it may specifically exclude the right to deal with real estate. There are specific limitations on powers of attorney with respect to real estate, for example, s.27 of the Property Law Act prohibits an ATTORNEY from selling land to himself and s.56 of the Land Title states that a filed Power of Attorney will (unless expressly excluded) expire 3 years after the date it was signed.

To be valid to transfer land, a lawyer is looking for a number of items including:
a)ascertaining the true identity of the parties involved;
b)make inquiries to ensure the POA has not been revoked;
c)ensuring that the ORIGINAL must be filed with the Land Title Office with a DF#;
d)ensuring that the POA was properly witnessed by an OFFICER under s.42(3) of the Land Title Act;
e) ensuring the POA has sufficient powers to transfer land; and,
f)ensuring that the attorney must be at least 19 yrs old.

Realtors should:
a)ensure they obtain a copy of the Power of Attorney for their file;
b)ensure they know the identity of their clients (both DONOR and ATTORNEY); and
c)ensure their client’s lawyer is aware that the Closing will be occurring by Power of Attorney.

Non-Resident Vendors: The Need for Changes to s.116 of the ITA

Recently I was asked to write an article for the Lawyers Weekly (a national newspaper in Canada directed to lawyers), this is a re-post of that article originally published by the Lawyer's Weekly October 8, 2010:

When we speak to law reform, real estate is generally a tortoise among hares and for good reason. Given that, for a majority of the population their home is their single biggest investment, there is a strong demand for a system that is efficient, fair and predictable.

However, for real estate lawyers in the current economic climate we are now dealing with the inability of Vendors to clear title in increasingly greater numbers. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy involved with Section 116 of the federal Income Tax Act adding to the uncertainty by delaying and jeopardizing sales of residential real estate. The eight month delays caused by procedural meandering, which has been readily acknowledged by the civil servants of the International Audit Division, gives purchasers in this buyers real estate market the opportunity to simply “walk” away from contracts with non-resident Vendors who are unable to clear title due to the requirement of a Section 116 holdback.

Section 116 requires a purchaser of residential real estate to withhold between 25% and 50% of the purchase price subject to a vendor obtaining a certificate of compliance from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). In the normal course of residential real estate transactions, this is accomplished by way of solicitor’s undertakings between the parties. In the past, these undertakings did not present a hurdle to non-resident vendors as the growth in the value of the property allowed the vendor to close, payout their lender, and simply wait to receive the holdback funds upon issuance of the certificate of compliance by CRA.

The current economic climate has dramatically changed this reality for non-resident vendors. Many non-resident vendors are required to payout high loan to value ratio mortgages and other sources of funds are no longer readily available. In the Okanagan Valley, where a large number of non-residents own secondary residences in our resort communities, this pressure has been compounded by the recent changes to the financing rules, which now require a minimum 80% loan to value ratio for secondary residences, and in turn this has decreased the pool of eligible buyers for any given property.

Often, with desperate sellers and fickle buyers, the real estate agents must cobble these deals together down to the last penny and leaving little if any additional funds for the holdback on the closing date. The nature of residential real estate practice (at least in British Columbia) is that the contract is often firm and binding on the non-resident vendor when the vendor is informed by their lawyer of the holdback amount thereby putting the vendors in a position where they are unable to close. In Epp v. Yung (1993), 35 R.P.R. (2d) 1 (B.C.S.C.) the court held that, even if the vendor disagrees with the amount of the holdback, the vendor must still close without access to the holdback funds and provide title free and clear of all financial encumbrance.

In 2008, CRA introduced changes to the s.116 certificate of compliance requirements; however these changes have not adequately addressed the issue. CRA personnel have acknowledged the delays and have recently provided advice to the Institute of Chartered Accountants, as published by their member advisory in September 2009, on the steps a vendor can take to minimize the time it takes to obtain a certificate of compliance. These steps include: a) ensuring forms are submitted early (ideally well in advance of closing); b) ensuring the vendor is registered for a tax number; c) ensuring that all the supporting documentation is available (eg; form T2062) to allow CRA to determine the adjusted cost base as well as the proceeds of disposition; and d) ensuring the cover letter requests a “Certificate of Compliance” (as opposed to a clearance certificate which causes confusion with another CRA program). CRA has been reported to be piloting a regional intake centre to quickly deal with “low risk files”, however there have been no reports on this program’s success or if it will be expanding.

The fundamental problem with the process for obtaining Certificate of Compliance is not a lack of manpower, however it is the associated purchaser’s requirement to withhold and investigate the nature of the vendor’s tax liability that, in the context of residential real estate needs to be statutorily changed. The objectives of the Income Tax Act would be much better served if, subject to receipt of a vendor’s statutory declaration of no gain, the liability for the vendor’s taxes remained with vendor and the CRA would cease to rely on purchasers as indemnitors.

This call for reform is not new and the need for change to the section 116 procedure has been noted by the Advisory Panel on Canada’s System for International Taxation in December 2008, wherein they recommended that the government “eliminate withholding tax requirements related to the disposition of taxable Canadian property where the non-resident certifies that the gain is exempt from Canadian tax because of a tax treaty”.

Absent a fundamental change in the legislation, the current requirements set out in section procedure are inefficient and have created instability in the residential real estate market, at a time when greater stability is needed. Since most residential contracts of purchase and sale are entered into without legal advice and lawyer s are often only engaged a short time prior to closing, it is often too late for legal counsel to complete the step necessary to get the transaction back on track for a timely closing. The end result is that this statutory requirement is doing more harm than good in our current real estate market.

The Story of a Collapsing Deal

(based on real life events)

At the end of August 2010, Dave and Jane were buying their first home. Nervous about finding the “right” home for themselves and their two kids they look at property after property. Finally, at the beginning of August 2010, the house at 3245 McLeod Road came up for $375,000. It was the right price, close the schools, and close to Dave’s work at the Gorman Mill. The Seller, John, had been anxious to sell for a long time, and needed to simply walk away from the home, his credit union mortgage was $355,000 and he needed a fresh start in a new town. Both parties were anxious to see the deal get done.

They came into see Peter, their real estate lawyer on August 22, 2010 and at that meeting they signed all the documents. He explained the process to them, including if the “what ifs” happen, and how the court process worked. Although there was only a very small chance these bad things would happen he wanted them to be armed with knowledge.

Dave and Jane were very excited and they booked their moving truck for September 1, 2010 (their Possession Date) and they have picked out paint colors for their daughter’s new bedroom and began to plan their lives in their new home.

On August 31, a series of unfortunate events occurred. First, the Land Title Office (which is electronic) went “offline” and no land title transfers were permitted to be registered at the end of the month. Closing was delayed, but not to worry the contract had been drafted to allow for this hiccup.

Then, on September 1, with the moving truck in the driveway, the Vendor’s lawyer “discovered” that they had an “IRD” penalty (of $21,000) on their mortgage and now the Vendor (John) did not have enough money to “payout” the mortgage on title. The Vendor (John) could not complete and could not fulfill the promise he made to give the “title free and clear of all encumbrances”. Dave and Jane had already moved out of their rental house and they were now homeless, forced to live in a motel. The moving company (for a small ransom) placed all their belongings in storage.

Crestfallen, Dave and Jane came to see Peter and Eric (a real estate litigator in the same firm) to ask what to do, they had remembered that part of their prior meeting dealing with the “what ifs” in real estate. The two lawyers explained that Dave and Jane could sue for damages or specific performance to get their dream home and they immediately started to put pressure on the Vendor to complete by “tendering” a “ready, willing and able to complete” letter, placing a caveat on the property title, and commencing legal proceedings.

Within 3 weeks there was a very happy ending, the Vendor was able to negotiate with the bank, and to avoid a lawsuit paid the additional costs (including legal fees) for Dave and Jane.

The moral of this story: For buyers, hope for the best, be prepared for the worst. For Realtors, ensure your sellers can clear title prior to signing the deal, or, at least, place a “subject to the seller ensuring they can clear title” so that you have pointed out the issue to them.

Getting Ready to Sell – Cleaning Up Your Land Title

As we move into another Buyer’s market cycle, it is important to remember the lessons Seller learnt the “last time around”. Realtors often recommend to Sellers to “declutter” and “stage” the interior of their homes, however, it is important to remember that, at its foundation Buyers are purchasing “PROPERTY RIGHTS” and therefore its important to ensure, as a Seller, that your Land Title is also “squeaky clean”.

A couple of things to do:

1. Remove any “extra” encumbrances on title – usually Buyers are expecting to see typical first mortgages on title, however where Uncle Buck lent you some money and registered a non-institutional second mortgage, or, where you have a small claims judgment registered against you, these “extra” encumbrances on title, including 2nd mortgages, judgments, builders liens, or certificates of pending litigation, can raise big RED FLAGS for Buyers, if they can be removed prior to closing (or even listing), it can make for a much smoother process.

2. Ensure you (as Seller) and only you are on title as the registered owner – did you inherit the property in a Will? Or, did your parents go on title as this was your first home? Or, have you gone through a legal separation? If you have the full legal rights to sell the home, ensure that you (and only you) are on title. In most cases the transfer to a surviving joint tenant, or to from parent to child, or a transfer in the course of a legal separation is easy (and most of the time a Property Transfer Tax exemption is available and no tax is payable!) Best to take care of these items prior to listing so there is no question when you sign the Contract that you are the person with the ability to sell the property.

3. Return the Duplicate Certificate of Title – A Duplicate Certificate of Title may be removed from the Land Title Office by some banks as security for loans (with or without registration of the mortgage). In the event that the Duplicate Certificate of Title is outstanding, no further transfer or mortgage may be registered on title. Therefore if this has been removed from the Land Title Office, it will bar any sale or mortgage of the property until it is returned and refiled with the Land Title Office.